Should siblings be allowed to enter into civil partnerships?

[sp1814]

A point raised by Anne Widdecombe when CPs were introduced. She felt she couldn't vote for CPs as it excluded siblings.

Lord Tebbit has reiterated the unfairness of CPs in this regard.

Does he have a point? Should CPs be open to close relatives, as described in the following article?

http://tinyurl.com/73ou9j2

[naomi24]

Yes - and more. It should extend to life-long friends who live together and share their lives, property, and assets.

[boxtops]

Yes

[Mark1520]

A few years ago a wedding took place of 2 people who thought they were brother and sister.
It turned out the lady was a fostered child who was fosterd by the man's parents.
I thought there was nothing wrong with the marriage but I was in the minority.

[naomi24]

Mark, I don't think we're talking about 'wedding' here, but rather a Civil Partnership. There ought to be a difference ... but that leads us on to another discussion.

[BAKERS DOZEN]

Until I read this question I had never thought about siblings and civil partnerships but cannot think of any reason against it.

[sp1814]

Hmmm - naomi24...I see the logic in what you're saying, but couldn't that argument open up another can of worms? One could then argue, "CPs if you alter CPs which were specifically brought in so that gay couples could 'wed' then you would be altering the meaning of 'gay marriages'", which is the argument proffered by those who oppose civil gay marriage.

I can see the merits of the 'pro' argument (siblings who have lived together in the same house all their lives will be hit by estate taxes when one passes away), but I have doubts about the 'life long friends' argument. How would it work if one of the friends then started going out with someone and committed 'adultery'? At the moment, you can dissolve a civil partnership under those circumstances, but with 'mates partnershios', I don't see how that could be accommodated.

[sp1814]

Mark1520

Perhaps your discomfort came from the idea that they had grown up as brother and sister which made it seem 'icky'.

For me, it would depend on how long the child was fostered (and to my understanding, children are put with foster parents for months, rather than their whole childhood).

...which is different from the while 'Woody Allen / Soon Yi' thing, which was genuinely icky.

[naomi24]

Does it take 'adultery' to dissolve a Civil Partnership? I really don't know.

If siblings, or friends, were allowed to form a Civil Partnership, as they should be (property, pensions rights, etc) then the issue of adultery wouldn't be an issue. Surely a good case for gay 'marriage' rather than Civil Partnership?

[jno]

I didn't find the Woody Allen thing icky; they weren't related, and didn't live together. She wasn't even related by blood to Farrow. It didn't amount to much more than falling in love with your girlfriend's sister, which is no doubt disruptive and messy but not scandalous. She's now 41 and been married 14 years, so it seems that they've got it right.

So anyway, yes, I can see a case for acknowledging non-sexual "partnerships". Perhaps it could be done as a form of business rather than personal partnership? Less romantic - but this isn't about romance.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I was wrong (about adultery). This is from a legal site (Healys Solicitors):

"The process for dissolution of civil partnership is the same as for divorce. Where the term divorce is used in this fact sheet it should be taken to include dissolution of civil partnership. The only exception is adultery which is a specific legal term relating to heterosexual sex and which cannot therefore be used as grounds for dissolving a civil partnership. If your partner is unfaithful the grounds for dissolution would instead be unreasonable behaviour."

So a CP can be dissolved because of adultery, but it would be recorded under 'unreasonable behaviour'

So we're both learning something...

[sp1814]

jno - that idea seems to make more sense. If siblings want to ensure the surviving brother or sister isn't hit by estate taxes, couldn't they put their joint holdings and property into a trust, so that when one of them passes away, the other can continue to live in the family home with estate tax only payable when the property is sold or when the remaining sibling dies and the property is passed on to another family member?

We need an accountant or tax advisor (not Jimmy Carr's) input here.

[sp1814]

Just thought of a problem with allowing siblings to enter into CPs - it would finally prove that they really AREN'T an institution to allow committed gay men and women (who are in love) to celebrate their union...it would signal that it's nothing more than a process to settle financial arrangements.

Oh...and another problem - when a CP is dissolved, one partner can sue the other for maintenance. Imagine if one of the (fictional) sisters found the man of her dreams and wanted to dissolve the partnership with her sister to marry the chap?

She could be hit with maintenance payments!

[jno]

I suppose a CP could well split up under such circumstances. Would a court rule that the one who's leaving should continue to contribute to the parent's maintenance? Maybe; but I suspect that would be up to the individual judge.

[naomi24]

I don't think CPs should be considered 'marriage' at all, but rather a 'business' arrangement that any couple could enter into. Perhaps a legally binding agreement should be drawn up beforehand in order to dispense with fights and confusion should one party subsequently wish to dissolve the partnership.

[Old_Geezer]

While the government insists on treating formal relationships differently to others then this sort of nonsense will always be an issue. There should be no State advantages given just because folk get married or form civil partnership, or whatever, since it amounts to treating some citizens better than others. Whilst this nonsense is still in place the least they could do is simply have a box on the tax form where you can nominate the partner of your choice regardless of who they are, where or how they live, whatever colour eyes they have, regardless as to whether they have a pimple on the bottom or not, .............

[sp1814]

naomi24 - but then doesn't that strengthen the argument for civil same sex unions? If CPs are a to be considered a business partnership then...

Hang on. Just thought - if two people want to enter a business partnership, why don't they simply enter a business partnership? These are already legally binding arrangement (as are sole traders, limited companies and corporations).

Perhaps CPs should be for people who are in love (or at the very least, can tolerate each other)?

[Duncer]

I read through this, largely agreed they should and thought I wanted to comment, but it is all so tricky that I'm off to sit in a dark cupboard for an hour to see if my head will stop hurting.

Best left to lawyers.

[naomi24]

/if two people want to enter a business partnership, why don't they simply enter a business partnership?//

I said 'business' partnership for want of a better term. I just think that CPs should be available to all committed partners, whatever their relationship.

[ludwig]

Like bakers dozen I'd never even thought about this until now, but I also can't see any reason why not.

[woofgang]

I have been banging on about this for years. YES civil partnerships should not be just about sexual attraction but should be open to any two adults who have a reason to need to formalise their arrangement, Sibs, parent child, friends and so on.